Sox hitting??

[S5Dewey]

You said a guy with a .966 OPS in August should be riding the bench. I thought that was wrong so I pointed it out.

 

..and here's one reason I don't post much here anymore. Everyone wants to use stats to make their point, even when they're being hypocritical

 

When it's posted that a player has an OPS of >.750 for August so he should be playing it's dismissed as a small sample size, but when that person who called SSS wants to make a case for playing a player with an OPS of .750 for August it's ok.

 

I know that some of us don't believe "hot hands" and believe that the frequency of hits is "random". I also know that I'm probably statistically "wrong" but when I see a guy coming to bat who's 12 for his last 15 I think he has a better chance of getting a hit than a player who's 0 for his last 15.

 

Color me crazy, I guess.

[Bellhorn04]

..and here's one reason I don't post much here anymore. Everyone wants to use stats to make their point, even when they're being hypocritical

 

When it's posted that a player has an OPS of >.750 for August so he should be playing it's dismissed as a small sample size, but when that person who called SSS wants to make a case for playing a player with an OPS of .750 for August it's ok.

 

I know that some of us don't believe "hot hands" and believe that the frequency of hits is "random". I also know that I'm probably statistically "wrong" but when I see a guy coming to bat who's 12 for his last 15 I think he has a better chance of getting a hit than a player who's 0 for his last 15.

 

Color me crazy, I guess.

 

I hear what you're saying. I don't think anyone fully understands what causes all the hot and cold streak stuff. My attitude is that managers get paid to make these decisions, and on a major league ballclub I assume they are getting a lot of statistical and anecdotal input that we don't necessarily have.

[BstHcpr]

..and here's one reason I don't post much here anymore. Everyone wants to use stats to make their point, even when they're being hypocritical

 

When it's posted that a player has an OPS of >.750 for August so he should be playing it's dismissed as a small sample size, but when that person who called SSS wants to make a case for playing a player with an OPS of .750 for August it's ok.

 

I know that some of us don't believe "hot hands" and believe that the frequency of hits is "random". I also know that I'm probably statistically "wrong" but when I see a guy coming to bat who's 12 for his last 15 I think he has a better chance of getting a hit than a player who's 0 for his last 15.

 

Color me crazy, I guess.

 

Agree 100%

 

Moonslav59, used a 7 day sample size as conclusive proof that the league had adjusted to Logan Morrison. However, a 20 game sample size for Moreland is a fluke. His cherry picking is sickening.

 

But you're kind of a cuck for invoking the "never posting here again line," because someone does something slightly annoying.

Edited August 20, 2017 by BstHcpr

[Larry Cook]

We really need devers and the eight outs to wake up and score some runs tonight!!!

[Bellhorn04]

We really need devers and the eight outs to wake up and score some runs tonight!!!

 

I'd rather they do it this afternoon.

[moonslav59]

You said a guy with a .966 OPS in August should be riding the bench. I thought that was wrong so I pointed it out.

 

It's only "wrong" when you tell who should sit instead.

 

Plus, a players last 10-15 games or so is not a good predictor of what is to come.

 

I'm not saying I don't like going with the hot hand, but to me, Moreland should be the odd man out when everyone is healthy. Who knows, by the time Pedey gets back, Moreland might be in a 3 for 30 stretch.

[Bellhorn04]

It's only "wrong" when you tell who should sit instead.

 

Plus, a players last 10-15 games or so is not a good predictor of what is to come.

 

I'm not saying I don't like going with the hot hand, but to me, Moreland should be the odd man out when everyone is healthy. Who knows, by the time Pedey gets back, Moreland might be in a 3 for 30 stretch.

 

So could anybody be in a 3 for 30 stretch.

[moonslav59]

Agree 100%

 

Moonslav59, used a 7 day sample size as conclusive proof that the league had adjusted to Logan Morrison.

 

I most certainly did not. I said, "MAYBE" the league has caught on to him. Big difference.

 

My main point was that I'm not for signing anyone based on what very well could be one outlier/ freaky season.

 

However, a 20 game sample size for Moreland is a fluke. His cherry picking is sickening.

 

Where did I say Moreland's August is a "fluke"? The guy is streaky. Expecting him to slump soon is not that hard to imagine.

 

I think I am pretty consistent in my criteria for judging players. I look at their most recent 2-3 year sample size mostly and may adjust for injury or rookie seasons. I also take into account L-R splits and recent trends but not as much as larger sample sizes.

 

Often times, I will use a small sample size, and always try to remember to make sure I say it is a small sample size, when someone says something like, "We should bench Young," based on going 0 for 4 in one game, but he's gone .900+ in the previous 2-3 weeks. Saying that does not mean I highly value a 3 week sample size. The point is made to show the absurdity of some knee-jerk posters.

 

I guess it looks like "cherry-picking", and I often try to show a "balancing" stat (sometimes in an equally small sample size or just slightly larger) to someone trying to make a good or bad point about a player. I do tend to play devil's advocate at times- probably to a fault.

 

I do believe in "hot hands", but it does not rule all my decisions. Maybe that makes me inconsistent or hypocritical to some, but I really do try to be consistent with my value criteria methodology. I just don't have much faith in Moreland, offensively. I know that sometimes when I rant about him still batting 4th, he goes 2 for 4 with a couple RBIs. I never pretend to be smarter than JF or DD, but that doesn't mean I'm ever going to stop giving my opinions.

[moonslav59]

So could anybody be in a 3 for 30 stretch.

 

Yup.

 

Look, if all you got for a reason to keep playing Moreland or battting him 4th or 5th are his August numbers and apparently GG defense,

then fine. To each his own.

 

I'm going with Nunez, Young vs LHPs, and reluctantly, HRam over Moreland once Pedey returns.

 

Now, if Moreland is still hitting over .900 when Pedey comes back, and HRam is slumping more than he is now, maybe I'll try to squeeze Moreland into more line-ups, but I'm thinking we will need HRam in the playoffs, so I'm sticking with Hanley- hoping he's not a sinking ship.

 

HRam has a much longer history of amazing (longer) offensive accomplishments than Moreland's few hot streaks over his career.

 

I'm not benching Young or Nunez just yet. There's no one else Moreland can replace.

[cp176]

Agree 100%

 

Moonslav59, used a 7 day sample size as conclusive proof that the league had adjusted to Logan Morrison. However, a 20 game sample size for Moreland is a fluke. His cherry picking is sickening.

 

But you're kind of a cuck for invoking the "never posting here again line," because someone does something slightly annoying.

 

I like this post a lot!

[cp176]

..and here's one reason I don't post much here anymore. Everyone wants to use stats to make their point, even when they're being hypocritical

 

When it's posted that a player has an OPS of >.750 for August so he should be playing it's dismissed as a small sample size, but when that person who called SSS wants to make a case for playing a player with an OPS of .750 for August it's ok.

 

I know that some of us don't believe "hot hands" and believe that the frequency of hits is "random". I also know that I'm probably statistically "wrong" but when I see a guy coming to bat who's 12 for his last 15 I think he has a better chance of getting a hit than a player who's 0 for his last 15.

 

Color me crazy, I guess.

 

I agree very much with you here.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not benching Young or Nunez just yet. There's no one else Moreland can replace.

 

Those three can all play about 70% of the time if that's what Farrell wants to do, using them in the best platoon/matchup situations.

[moonslav59]

Those three can all play about 70% of the time if that's what Farrell wants to do, using them in the best platoon/matchup situations.

 

Nunez has begun to come down to earth somewhat, and when Pedey comes back, I can see not needing or wanting to play him everyday, but despite the bad 2017 splits, I want Young in the line-up vs every LH'd starter, and I feel Nunez and HRam are both better options than Moreland vs LH'd and RH'd starters.

 

I can't see Moreland playing 70% of the games. We basically will have these 4 players will play 1B and DH, unless Nunez is needed at 2B and Pedey will be used at DH some or a lot:

 

HRam

Nunez

Young (v LHPs)

Moreland

 

If Young only plays 33% of the time, we have 1 and 2/3 slots for 3 guys. I can't see how Moreland gets 66% playing time without greatly reducing HRam or Nunez's (or Pedey) time.

[S5Dewey]

Agree 100%

 

Moonslav59, used a 7 day sample size as conclusive proof that the league had adjusted to Logan Morrison. However, a 20 game sample size for Moreland is a fluke. His cherry picking is sickening.

 

But you're kind of a cuck for invoking the "never posting here again line," because someone does something slightly annoying.

 

Ok. that's fair. But it's true, and I didn't say "never". This, like everything else, will pass.

[S5Dewey]

And this is the problem with labeling players. I sometimes think that when it comes to statistics we can't see the forest for the trees. Moreland (for example) may be exactly what he was called, a .700-.750 OPS hitter, but he doesn't get that way by having an OPS of ~.725 in each game. He gets there by having streaks where his OPS is ~.900 and other streaks where it's ~.600.

 

It's the same with JBJ. He can go on a tear where his OPS can be >1.20 for a short time and another streak where it's <.400. these streaks exist and no amount of statistics or rationalization is going to do away with that.>

 

I agree that there is no guarantee that a player will get a hit in his next AB based on what he's done in his previous AB's but as I said before, I'd rather take my chances that a player on a hot streak will continue to be hot than take a chance that a player who's 0 for his last 15 is going to break out and get a hit.

[Bellhorn04]

And this is the problem with labeling players. I sometimes think that when it comes to statistics we can't see the forest for the trees. Moreland (for example) may be exactly what he was called, a .700-.750 OPS hitter, but he doesn't get that way by having an OPS of ~.725 in each game. He gets there by having streaks where his OPS is ~.900 and other streaks where it's ~.600.

 

It's the same with JBJ. He can go on a tear where his OPS can be >1.20 for a short time and another streak where it's <.400. these streaks exist and no amount of statistics or rationalization is going to do away with that.>

 

I agree that there is no guarantee that a player will get a hit in his next AB based on what he's done in his previous AB's but as I said before, I'd rather take my chances that a player on a hot streak will continue to be hot than take a chance that a player who's 0 for his last 15 is going to break out and get a hit.

 

The beauty with JBJ is you pencil him in every day because of his defense and take the offense when it comes.

[S5Dewey]

The beauty with JBJ is you pencil him in every day because of his defense and take the offense when it comes.

 

I agree, and it's the same way with Mookie and so far to a lesser extent with Beni. We do need offensive production from them but this is a really good defensive outfield.

[Nick]

The beauty with JBJ is you pencil him in every day because of his defense and take the offense when it comes.

 

Hell you can't have a better 9th batter.

[OH FOY]

18 HRS with only 46 RBI's, that's terrible. Come on now stop it with Hanley. Stop with crazy numbers, he's terrible when you need runs to be driven in. Edited August 20, 2017 by OH FOY!

[oldtimer]

The bottom of the order came through today. We can't expect Nunez, Beni and Devers to stay hot all the time so it was nice to see others chipping in. Bradley especially had a good day.

[Kimmi]

And this is the problem with labeling players. I sometimes think that when it comes to statistics we can't see the forest for the trees. Moreland (for example) may be exactly what he was called, a .700-.750 OPS hitter, but he doesn't get that way by having an OPS of ~.725 in each game. He gets there by having streaks where his OPS is ~.900 and other streaks where it's ~.600.

 

It's the same with JBJ. He can go on a tear where his OPS can be >1.20 for a short time and another streak where it's <.400. these streaks exist and no amount of statistics or rationalization is going to do away with that.>

 

I agree that there is no guarantee that a player will get a hit in his next AB based on what he's done in his previous AB's but as I said before, I'd rather take my chances that a player on a hot streak will continue to be hot than take a chance that a player who's 0 for his last 15 is going to break out and get a hit.

 

All other things being fairly equal, it would be fine to go with the 'hot hand'. However, if you have a guy like Mookie in an 0 for 30 slump versus someone like Holt who is 15 for his last 30, it would be a mistake, IMO, to go with Holt. That might be an extreme case, but the point is, you go with the better hitter over the 'hot' but weaker hitter.

[Northern Star]

18 HRS with only 46 RBI's, that's terrible. Come on now stop it with Hanley. Stop with crazy numbers, he's terrible when you need runs to be driven in.

 

Hanley sucks. Another bad contract that needs to be consumed with a nice chianti.

[S5Dewey]

All other things being fairly equal, it would be fine to go with the 'hot hand'. However, if you have a guy like Mookie in an 0 for 30 slump versus someone like Holt who is 15 for his last 30, it would be a mistake, IMO, to go with Holt. That might be an extreme case, but the point is, you go with the better hitter over the 'hot' but weaker hitter.

 

A person can always build a hypothetical case to try to make their point. In your hypothetical situation it would depend on whether or not Holt is 0 for his last 15.

As I've said twice, i'll go with the guy who's got the hot hand rather than gamble that the guy who's 0 for 30 will break out at that moment.

[Spudboy]

These stats strike out to me, so far this year.

RISP .184 Underneath it has him at .280, so its basically .230.

With Runners on .210

2 outs and RISP .143

.249 in Fenway

These are killing the team.

Hanley Ramirez

I would absolutely, flip-flop him and Devers, at this point.

 

Those are decent numbers.

 

For a sloth.

[oldtimer]

All other things being fairly equal, it would be fine to go with the 'hot hand'. However, if you have a guy like Mookie in an 0 for 30 slump versus someone like Holt who is 15 for his last 30, it would be a mistake, IMO, to go with Holt. That might be an extreme case, but the point is, you go with the better hitter over the 'hot' but weaker hitter.

 

Kimmi, maybe it comes down to how you define a better hitter.

 

If a hypothetical 0 for 30 stretch occurs and your hitter puts a lot of balls in play but is unlucky, then there is room for hope and reason to continue to play. On the other hand if the 0 for 30 occurs with lots of strikeouts and weakly hit pop-ups and ground balls, is this guy really your better hitter?

 

Everyone goes through slumps and tries to make adjustments while in real time opposiing teams attempt to continue the slump. Some players have historys of beinng hot for part of a season and cold after that. How long can the team allow a hitter to be totally non-productive and what measures can be used to bring him out of it? jf has tried the rest and movement in order approach. The schedule grind ihas to wear on these guys so rest seems to make sense. One presumes that the batting coach spends time with and communicates to the player about weakness in plate approach and suggest corrective measures to be worked on in the cage. On the other hand, our backup players have that status for a reason and they are not likely to contribute in a major way when brought in.

 

Its a complex issue to deal with but doing nothing and letting things play out doesn't seem to be a reasonable approach.

[Maxbialystock]

All other things being fairly equal, it would be fine to go with the 'hot hand'. However, if you have a guy like Mookie in an 0 for 30 slump versus someone like Holt who is 15 for his last 30, it would be a mistake, IMO, to go with Holt. That might be an extreme case, but the point is, you go with the better hitter over the 'hot' but weaker hitter.

 

I think the Holt discussion is by now pointless. He is the crucial spare part, the only guy who can backup at 2b, SS, or 3b, but he is also now on the bench. He played today because Farrell wanted to give the suddenly cold Nunez and off day, and he probably batted leadoff because Farrell didn't want to force any one else to do. But the point is this was just one game. Farrell wants to keep his hitters in the lineup, no question.

[Spudboy]

I hear what you're saying. I don't think anyone fully understands what causes all the hot and cold streak stuff. My attitude is that managers get paid to make these decisions, and on a major league ballclub I assume they are getting a lot of statistical and anecdotal input that we don't necessarily have.

 

Boom.

 

Never the less we have so many baseball experts on Talksox.

 

Many of whom must be really quick studies as they have been fans only since the advent of the Internet.

[Spudboy]

I agree, and it's the same way with Mookie and so far to a lesser extent with Beni. We do need offensive production from them but this is a really good defensive outfield.

 

It's getting better defensively.

[S5Dewey]

It's getting better defensively.

 

Bordering on excellent?

[Spudboy]

Bordering on excellent?

 

As a whole? No. Not yet.